User talk:Junglecat/Archive 3

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

 * Despite the delay, thanks for your trust. I won't let you down. Luna Santin 12:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Duff_Goldman_with_cakes.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Duff_Goldman_with_cakes.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 02:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the tag that's the problem, it's that the image is replaceable. That is, there seems to be nothing special about the image that someone taking a free image of the person couldn't replace. We want free images, not copyrighted images. --MECU ≈ talk 02:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Image
It may be good to state where you got the actual image from and a copy of the e-mail in the "Licensing" section. Cbrown1023 01:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The email is from Mary Alice of Charm City Cakes. I can forward to an admin to verify this. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  01:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK!
--Savidan 18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Duff Goldman with cakes.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Duff Goldman with cakes.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The image has been deleted by author's request.--Jersey Devil 01:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Talk:FrontPageMag.com up for deletion. Travb (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was a re-direct to the main article. Thanks.  JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
 It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for watching out for me :) Postoak 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No probs! ;-) JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  00:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Hi, Junglecat. Just venturing into the jungle here to say thanks for your support at my RfA. Great turnout, and a humbling level of support. Thanks again. Bubba hotep 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

question
I saw that you are a conservative Wikipedian. Would you like to join Conservapedia as a editor? Conservapedia is looking for good editors and Admins. Please send me your email if you want to join Conservapedia. If you feel reticient about giving out your email address you can simply create a new account at hotmail and yahoo so you don't risk getting a lot of junk mail. Regional123 02:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Regional123

Your Userpage
Your userpage is in Category:User templates or a related category. Please take it out of this category or find the userbox that puts your userpage in this category. If you know how to then the category in the userbox and message me afterwards so that we can see the effect on the purged category. -PatPeter 22:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes
Because of WP:StS rule I have put the following userboxes in subpages:
 * User:Junglecat/marriage
 * User:Junglecat/conservative
 * User:Junglecat/army
 * User:Junglecat/NPOV
 * User:Junglecat/Bush
 * User:Junglecat/Israel
 * User:Junglecat/Electronic

Reply
No problem for the help. One quick question before I go into the explanation: What does per mean?

But StS stands for Source to Short(cut), Script to Short(cut), etc. The goal of this developing Wikiproject is to first have all userboxes have something that looks like this on them:

== Rules ==

*DO NOT copy the source code of this userbox onto your userpage, your userpage is not a Wikipedia user templates.

== Usage ==

*Put on your userpage if you want this userbox.

This example was from Template:User AGF.

The reason for this as you can read is that new users copy the source code of userboxes instead of using the shortcut, this causes problems when the new user puts his/her userpage in a category like Category:User templates, thus destroying categories for templates.

Here look here

I do not know if there are still that many users there, I have been waiting for Wikipedia to cache the page, but if there still are you can see there are more users than templates! I also do not know if this category is still sorted but look here (CG:LUT). This is a work of beauty. All the userspace LUTs are in one section.

If you want to join the project dedicated to cleaning up userspace with subpages and putting Rules and Usage sections on Userboxes go here.

If you want to join the project dedicated to cleaning up all categories go here.

In the case you join WP:CC then feel free to use User:PatPeter/youruserpage

-PatPeter 03:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandal Fighting Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar. — zero » 23:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit count list
Sure, I don't mind, thanks. - Crockspot 17:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Broadband loveliness...
You're welcome! LOL, I have to laugh, because I always think others beat me to it. It's kind of a game, especially when you try to beat MartinBot. I suppose this is one of the things that makes RC patrol fun ... keep up the good work yourself! :-) Antandrus  (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:John_O_Creighton.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:John_O_Creighton.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Problem solved here. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Baptist group
There now is a proposed project to deal specifically with articles relating to Baptists at WikiProject Council/Proposals. If you would be interested in joining such a group, please indicate as much by adding your name there. Thank you. John Carter 19:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA


Hello, thank you for supporting my RfA! I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0. Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

Isreal (sic) userbox
Thanks for making the userbox, but it is misspelled. Israel is the second name of the father of the eponymous 12 tribes. Iosef aetos 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the userbox, this change is much appreciated. Iosef aetos 16:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
You're welcome! Funny, had this edit tab open, and forgot to save, but you noticed first. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Israel Userbox
I messed up trying to make a category for the Israel Userbox, maybe you know how to fix it, I don't know very much wiki markup. Iosef aetos 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

UBX Userbox Israel
Thanks! that's a good idea. Iosef aetos 16:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: jesse
thank you, I did not know that rule.

Samuel Chacko പകലൊമററം 12:50, 11 May 02007 (UTC)

Thanks
Junglecat, thank you for your kind words in support of my RfA. And for calming the waters some in the discussion of my sig. Please feel free to drop me a note any time if there is anything that I might be able to do for you. Pastordavid 15:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from someone else
...for your comment. Believe me, it's good to know there are others who understand. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa
Hello, Junglecat. Thank you very much for your support and your nice comment on my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I feel honoured to have earned your trust and hope to live up to your expectations. If you see me doing anything inappropriate, please let me know :) Have a great day! Best, PeaceNT 11:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Burrowing Owl
I know you already supported, but User:Wsiegmund has used his software to edit the Burrowing Owl shot I took...if you care to take another peek.--MONGO 05:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wsiegmund did a good job. Looks very nice. I added my comment there. Even without the enhancement, the photo is still a great capture. Myself, I am starting to use my camera more now. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  22:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

 * No probs! ;-) JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

About My "Edit"
Back on May 20th, you left me a message about how I deleted content from an article. That was not I per say, but rather someone else on my laptop (My username is Halladay). I'll be sure to make sure my sister doesn't mess things up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.162.110 (talk • contribs)

AfD/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination)
Please feel free to ask questions if you wish to clarify any doubts. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 04:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

JungleCat...you also seem to have concernes about the way this Afd was closed. I am considering an Rfc on Mailer diablo's poor communication on this matter, his lack of sufficient explanation regarding how he came to his decision of closing such a huge discussion in only 7 minutes (since the last edit he did) and his evasiveness overall. Let me know what you think about this matter when you get a chance.--MONGO 11:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you do file an RfC, please do let me know. Thanks. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  13:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Still under consideration. Mailer was surprisingly adolescent in his responses. He shouldn;t be closing contencious Afd's if he isn't going to take the time to read the comments and be ready to maturely respond to questioning about his actions.--MONGO 04:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The community put forth their opinions about the article, should it be removed or renamed, etc. I doubt very seriously that he read it. By his attitude, he didn't take it seriously. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  11:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I can see on his userpage, youth appears to be a factor. I'm more concerned now with the rapid deterioration of the article in question. These guys have 20 odd refs for one sentence in the opening...POINT is rather obvious. They have taken over the discussion board...it is mostly now a mudslinging fest. These are just but a couple of reasons why this article is hopelessly never going to be anything salavagable.--MONGO 11:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Duff_Goldman_of_Charm_City_Cakes.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Duff_Goldman_of_Charm_City_Cakes.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
...for the compliment! It was fun to compile those. Have a look at Moreschi's as well. There's some good stuff in that "Wikipedia essays" category. I see from your user page that you know the Gulf coast; I miss those beaches, from back when I lived in that area. White sand, perfect and pristine, warm water ... nicest beaches I've ever seen in my life. Keep up the great work and have a nice weekend! Antandrus (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Check your edit
Yup, I noticed that after I reverted. There were multiple IP addresses vandalizing Sport in Australia multiple times, and I accidentally reverted to a vandalized edit. I just restored a non-vandalized version. Thanks for the notice, though. Danelo 23:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I replied on your page. Take care! JungleCat   Shiny! / Oohhh!  23:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, very nice. It truly is a dangerous world out there on the "Recent changes" page (although since when is "hahaha, i deleted it all" considered vandalism anyway?) ;) Danelo 16:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You distruption of the page and false claims
Can you point out the OR? Everthing is cited and verifibable. There are no claims originated by any editors in section-- nothing original, just reporting on the notable views of established academics on the question. Your continued blanked sourced material that was the product consensus--editors working on both sides of the POV fence of that article is reprehensible. For you to come in and blank all work, and get the page locked is akin to vandalism. But, why do you make up such blatent lies to do so? OR? WHERE?! You have just destoryed whatever reputation you had as a decent and credible editor on this page. Shame on you!! I expect you to at least explain your abhorent behavior, as I will continue to pursue your vicious crime in this matter that I find rather dispicable worthy of the greatest contempt possible.Giovanni33 00:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My response is on the talk page. My suggestion (and I would appreciate) is to keep the talk there. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  00:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but unless your response is to apologize for your rather inexcusable behavior there is not much concern for what you happen to appreicate as you have sunken to the bottom of ceasepool for consideration as a decent editor. I assumed good faith and you proved yourself worthy of disgust and contempt. As I said, this blatant vandalism on your part will be something that will stay with you from unless you make a clear retraction of these events and a sincere apology for the great damange you have done.Giovanni33 00:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting. Where is the OR?!?! You make your claim to justify your blanking a well referenced section against consensus, and disrupted the page to get it locked after your blanking, on the basis that it was OR. Now you have some explaining to do, lest you admit to being a vandal? Again, I'm waiting. I posted on the talk page that you have a lot of explaining to do.Giovanni33 00:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, let's get something straight here. Your impatient demands are not appropriate. If I had to walk away from this computer for a few minutes, then so be it. You shouldn't harass me for not jumping to respond to you when I haven't even seen your question yet. Second, I saw your accusation. I do not appreciate being called a vandal when I am looking to protect the reputation of Wikipedia (even if you disagree with me). Third, if you are going to carry on a conversation, I would appreciate brief responses. I do not need a "War and Peace" response in regards to your opinions. Please keep your replies reasonable. Can you agree to that? If not, then I will not waste my time this evening. Thank you. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  01:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

STILL WAITING. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ASNWER? The longer you take, the more you cement the veracity of the wiki-crimes I accuse you of. Yes, I accuse you. If you have any shred of validity to your blanking over and over the work of many editors with what you did to that entire section, now is the time to speak up, or else your continued silence on the matter only condemns you further. Again, WHERE is the OR?!Giovanni33 01:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is becoming harassment. Since the article appears to be protected for an extended period of time, maybe you should enjoy your weekend, and come back at this with a cooler head. - Crockspot 02:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh trust me I am being super cool now given that I'm quite legitimately upset at what was done. Now I demand an explanation, while I still hold out for the possiblity that said action has some legitimate basis, and this is not outright vandalism. He said he did what he did because it was OR. Ok, now I'm waiting for him to explain. If this is not vandalism, despite it looking like it, smelling like it, and sounding like it, then pretell, show us how you came to conclude that the section was OR? At least then I can see (even if you are wrong) that you acted in good faith. Otherwise, the repeated blanking of the whole section and all the hard work editors put into it is tantamount to a confession of pure vandalism. Again, while I hold onto possiblity that it was not vandalism, I await an explanation. At least you can't say I'm not going to extra lengths to allow for good faith, but its become increasingly clear to me that it is exactly what it looks like it is: vandalism. And, if that is the case, NO ONE should be "cool" with that. Its cause for this user to be banned.Giovanni33 02:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what JC's schedule is like, but I was offline for a few hours today, and a whole thing blew up about me. I shudder to think what will happen tomorrow, when I'm off all day. Plus, people don't tend to respond well to demands from opposing editors. So just give it a rest and enjoy the outdoors and check back Sunday or Monday. If you still aren't satisfied, then take what action you feel is appropriate. But ranting on here is only going to hurt the chances of any action you take being successful. - Crockspot 02:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll wait. When he starts edting again, I hope he will deal with this right away. What he did was very serious and needs an explanation.Giovanni33 02:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Alledged "OR" Section that was repeated blanked by you without any discussion on talk
Your actions, as the basis of my accusation (blanking three times in a row against three different editors, claiming it OR):
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=146022799&oldid=146021931
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=145827861&oldid=145825656
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=146020069&oldid=146012238

To help you review the material, its below. I'm still waiting for your explanation for why you claimed it was OR, and thus blanked it completely, against the consensus of editors working on the page who supported it and worked in it with me (over 17 established editors). Please look at it and tell me exactly how and why you came to the conclusion that it was OR that demaned wholesale and repeated blanking, over and over on that basis. Again, I'm assuming good faith and so that is why I want an explanation so I can understand how it can possibly not be outright vandalism (which will make me very very mad). If its just your being honestly mistaken, then I wont be mad. But if its outright vandalism, don't expect me to be nice. I'm not nice to vandals.


 * Note: This is where the disputed text from the article was posted. Removed as per my timestamp here. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  21:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I don't have a lot of time, but I can say that I'm seeing a lot of poor (as in difficult to verify) sources. For example, watchingamerica has an interesting disclaimer linked at the bottom of the piece. The third paragraph is the kicker. The Zinn pamphlet is a transcription that is self-published by a third party. How do we know this is accurate? A good number of the sources are published on a couple of different people's home pages. How do we know all of that material is accurate, and isn't fabricated? (This guy is my favorite.) Many of these are being used as primary sources as well. Commondreams.org? News for the Progressive community? That's not biased, is it? They're not all crap, but at least half are. Something doesn't have to be unsourced to be OR. It can be poorly sourced. This section takes difficult to verify primary sources, which are presented on self-published hosts, and dots them with a few decent sources, and some opinion, and it presents them in a way that advances a position. I don't think it is at all unreasonable to consider this OR. - Crockspot 04:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to explain this is interesting, but fails. If there was a problem with the reliablity of any of these sources (I notice you dont mention most of the sources, which I assume means you think they are reliable--and they support the claims of the other sources, btw), then that means pointing it out and finding better sources to substanciate the claims. And, this does not make it OR. The sources do suport the claims. We are not originating any new claims based on our own knowlege or belief, etc. So, again, where is the OR?  When soemthing is sourced it can not be OR, by definition, if the source supports the claim. You should know that, and Junglecats been here long enough to as well. Again, he didnt attempt to fix anything, point out anything with problems he had. He simply blanked the entire section rthe repatedly, which was added with consensus--leaving nothing behind, wiping out everyones work--and not talk page usage. If the whole thing was OR, then he would be right. Otherwise, its vandalism of the most insideous kind, under the pretext of "following the rules."Giovanni33 04:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually have an issue with nine of the fifteen cited sources, for the reasons stated above. I just don't have time to go through them one by one. You can disagree with the assessment that it is OR, but it is not an unreasonable opinion to find it OR. It certainly is improper to call established editors who disagree with you, and are following policy in good faith, vandals. - Crockspot 04:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, its not improper when an editor enages in vandalism by blanking the ENTIRE section--over and over--without any explanation other than the absurd claim its "OR,' but refuses to explain how or why. Your pointing out problems you have with the source does not make it OR. Those are two different concepts, and even if true, does not support blanking the entire section. Its vandalism and those who do this are vandals by definition.Giovanni33 04:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. All I can say is that if you keep up this line of attack, you'll get yourself blocked, and you can blame no one but yourself. I made a further comment on the article talk page. I'm done here. - Crockspot 04:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I note that none sources you dispute are not about the claims of State terrorism--the main part of the article. But the ones you do dispute, better citations can be easily found. For exmaple, here is a better source for the same information,for the Bard memorandum.* This settles your example of your "favorite" one above. My point is that its clear that not using the best source does not make it OR. The sources do suport all the claims.Giovanni33 00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Text removed here also. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  21:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for helping with Cornercrew's welcome
Not a problem:) I made the change.  I seen what I did, I capitalized "Cat", but it took me a minute.  I was like "what did I do here?" :)  Take Care and Have a Good Weekend....NeutralHomer  T:C 03:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Take care and have a great weekend! JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  03:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

subst:
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:uw-test1&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.  Cheers, Lig  hts  01:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing me that. I know that a bot runs through and does these. I didn't know I could substitue myself on post. I need to set up my sandbox to have them ready to go (if I use a "nowiki" text?). I'll figure it out. Thanks. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  01:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Duff Goldman of Charm City Cakes.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Duff Goldman of Charm City Cakes.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ejfetters 07:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry my bad, didn't mean to list that again.Ejfetters 07:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The correct tagging was resolved earlier with help by Quadell No problems - Thanks.  JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  17:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed?
I saw you edit so I assume the issue is resolved.--MONGO 04:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes! I am good now. Vista has some issues with popups from what I have seen. This happened to me earlier. I'll need to put something together for the FAQ dealing with popups. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  04:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Texas Historical Commission marker program
I work with the marker program at the THC. We are currently working with our legal department to investigate using THC wording without THC permission. Photography of markers would display wording without THC permission. This has been an issue concerning other web site which display Official Texas Historical Markers and has been brought to the attention of county historical commissions which intend to use marker wording in publications. Until this issue is settled, I think it best if pictures of markers are not used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulder8281 (talk • contribs) 17:30, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, please let me know on what your legal department decides. By the way, please have them update the THC website FAQ section here to reflect the decision for future reference. Thanks. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  02:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)